The Whittingdale file: a plea for better journalism

It's a mystery as to why the national newspapers chose not to expose a juicy story about the UK culture secretary. But claiming that his policies were 'influenced' by the 'suppression' of the story is pure conjecture.

John Whittingdale (centre). Credit: John Stillwell / PA Archive

I am
all in favour of good investigative journalism. Why so many newspapers have
passed up the opportunity to expose John Whittingdale’s private life is
something of a mystery, given their past behaviour – perhaps Hacked Off should
be cheering such restraint! But the suppositions in James Cusick’s article are at times so off-key that one
can only conclude it is part of a different tradition of journalism – innuendo
– rather than anything solidly based. Let me run through the two dozen errors
in his piece.

How
could Whittingdale be open to blackmail when he was open about his connection
with Olivia King and half of Fleet Street knew about it?

How
could he be the Culture Secretary Rupert Murdoch dreamed of when he was the
chair of the Culture Media and Sport Committee that summoned Rupert and James
Murdoch to their “most humble” day of interrogation, and published a report
depicting James as “unfit” to run a major corporation?

What
policy decisions has Whittingdale taken that have been influenced by the
prospect of exposure of his private life (something dozens of outlets,
including Byline, could have inflicted on him at any time)? And how could
policy decisions about the BBC come into this calculation? The likelihood of
the BBC publishing this story must always have been remote.

Whittingdale
has not made “serial attacks” on the BBC’s “independence and influence”. The Committee
he used to chair – which was, by the way, far more critical of the BBC under
the chairmanship of his predecessor, Gerald Kaufman – published several reports
on the BBC, but none that ever took aim at the BBC’s independence and
influence. The most recent, in February last year, was warmly welcomed by the
BBC.

The
so-called “assault on the BBC’s finances” in July 2015 actually resulted in the
BBC being better off financially. The 2010 “ambush” – which did indeed reduce
the BBC’s spending power by some £500 million a year – had nothing to do with
Whittingdale: indeed his Committee criticised its substance and timing.

It
is highly likely that any Culture Secretary in a Conservative government would
have blocked the penal clauses in the post-Leveson legislation, which was
effectively pushed through parliament by a LibDem/Labour alliance,
half-heartedly supported by the Tories at the time.

Likewise,
virtually all senior Conservatives are willing to give IPSO a chance to prove
itself, as were both Whittingdale’s most recent predecessors (Maria Miller and
Sajid Javid).

There
is, therefore, nothing to be gained from “keeping Whittingdale in place”: any
successor would take the same views. Indeed, if the UK votes “remain” in June,
he is likely to be replaced in the post-referendum re-shuffle.

If
Whittingdale was quite happy to take Olivia King to tea in the Commons, why
would Cameron be taking a risk in appointing him to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?

There
was always a prospect of the Commons select committee investigating MGN phone-hacking (and
they may still do so): Whittingdale himself would not necessarily have been
able either to initiate or block such an inquiry – his committee was
cross-party, without a Conservative majority. Labour’s Tom Watson was one of
the more influential committee members, and was always keen to expose
phone-hacking.

To
say that Whittingdale was “no ordinary backbencher” misses the point: he had
ceased to have any front bench responsibilities (which were, in any event,
always very junior) back in 2005. He was a backbencher by choice, having opted
for a committee chairmanship. The prospect of ever joining the cabinet or
having much influence was remote.

Whether
Whittingdale (or any senior Tory of his vintage) ever felt strongly about
introducing a Royal Charter for the press, and cost-incentives to sign up to
it, I do not know. For a time, loyalty to Oliver Letwin (who dreamed up the
Charter idea) prevailed during the coalition period. But there was always an
undercurrent of resistance, and Whittingdale was one of the first to argue from
the backbenches that the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) deserved a chance to
prove itself. The notion that this was somehow connected to an investigation
into his private life is pure speculation, without a shred of evidence.

Likewise
with the “continuing attacks on the BBC”: everyone condemned the six-figure
pay-offs to redundant executives (including new BBC DG Tony Hall), and the CMS
Committee inquiry into “every aspect” of the BBC was exactly what the committee
was there to undertake. Its impressive cross-party report was, as I said
earlier, welcomed by the BBC. To describe the process as “threatening”, and
then invoke James Murdoch, is comical – how about citing Adolf Hitler (another
critic of the BBC)?

There
was indeed excitement within the Tory press when Whittingdale became Culture Secretary (though the notion that his first meeting with Cameron had one item
on the agenda – the BBC – is pure fiction). The likes of the Mail, the Times
and the Telegraph anticipated just what journalists like James does: some kind
of attack on the BBC. Indeed, within seconds of the publication of
Whittingdale’s Green Paper on the BBC, the Corporation itself inaccurately attacked it as such. The reaction of the Tory papers was more
accurate: nothing radical, all very open-ended, something of a damp squib (that
is, if you had mistakenly expected an attack). It is simply and flatly untrue
to say “the implied promise that the BBC would have its authority and power cut
back was delivered soon after the Conservative victory”.

The
same can be said of the claim that “throughout 2014 Whittingdale continued to
attack the BBC”. It was not Whittingdale, but his CMS Committee, that took
evidence that year, and concluded that the licence fee was “unsustainable”.
That the licence fee is “worse than the poll tax” and “hits the poor hardest” is
simply a statement of fact (Greg Dyke used to say the same before he became BBC
DG). I have been arguing for replacement of the licence
fee for 30 years, on grounds of fairness, efficiency and revenue protection: far
from that constituting an “attack” on the BBC, better financing is designed to
protect the BBC. In any event, Whittingdale has always conceded that the
licence fee has years more ahead of it, and raised no objection to the (flawed)
Perry Report rejecting decriminalisation of
licence fee evasion (a policy that had already been endorsed by his CMS
Committee and both houses of parliament). Whittingdale has even promised to
extend the licence fee to iPlayer use, as requested by the BBC. Can we please
have some facts in what purports to be a journalistic article?

As
for the February 2015 report, this came from the CMS
Committee, not the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If such reports did not ask “what is the BBC there to
do?”, the question would arise as to what these committees are for (the Lords
Communications Committee asked very similar questions). The criticism of the
proposed BBC One +1 channel was actually endorsed by the BBC Trust, which
rejected its launch for the same reasons as the CMS Committee had offered:
there was already a much more comprehensive catch-up service available.

Yet
more innuendo is on offer from James in noting that George Osborne met with
Rupert Murdoch “before the BBC was told it faced severe budget cut-backs”. The
notion that Murdoch would have nothing better to talk to Osborne about than the
BBC is curious. And, as it turned out, Osborne made so many concessions to the
BBC in his deal with Tony Hall that the feared impact of progressive transfer
of funding free TV licences for the over-75s was replaced by a realisation that
the BBC would enter 2020 better off than it entered 2015. Or perhaps
that was what Murdoch was urging Osborne to do!

The
claim that various newspapers had a “vested interest” in keeping Whittingdale
in place, and so repeatedly suppressed the story about Olivia King, simply
collapses on two fronts. First, most of the “suppression” occurred before
Whittingdale was “in place”, back before the election. The notion that he
needed to be preserved as CMS Committee chair is far-fetched: what difference
would it make if (as has now happened) Jesse Norman had become chairman?
Secondly, you have to assume that all the different papers conspired together:
otherwise each was taking the risk that someone else would publish. By the way,
has Whittingdale resigned since Byline (and oD) broke the story?

Whittingdale
has not given himself “unfettered executive power over the press” by refusing
to implement the cost penalties clauses included in the 2013 legislation.
Veteran civil liberties QC Lord Lester has condemned these clauses as
unenforceable in law because of their transparent unfairness, and there is no
doubt that all the major press groups would therefore ignore the clauses (and
perhaps even invite a test case so as to have them rejected by the Supreme
Court). The only papers that might be deterred by the clauses from running any
investigative journalism are regional and local titles, lacking the resources
to fight a long legal battle. It is inconceivable that Whittingdale would have
taken this decision without consulting Cameron: ergo, any replacement for him
would most likely take the same view.

As
for Part 2 of Leveson, almost no-one – including Leveson – seems to have much
of an appetite for such a circus. I am sure that Whittingdale could readily
provide reasons (including cost) if anyone asked. It is an issue that barely
registers on the Westminster Richter scale.

Finally,
we come to three mistakes in the same sentence: “Whittingdale recently
suggested he should appoint the members of the BBC Trust”. Oh dear.
Whittingdale, of course, already approves (after a complex public appointments
procedure) all members of the BBC Trust, just as all governments at all times
appointed all members of the BBC Governors before they were replaced by the
Trust. What actually happened last month was that a report from Sir David
Clementi (former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England) suggested that, if the
Trust were itself replaced, and a combined board of executives and
non-executives were formed to run the BBC, not all the non-executives should be
government appointees (he did not spell out exactly how these others would be
selected). Obviously, complex issues of independence and governance arise, and
you can follow the debate in the columns of Media Guardian.

Whittingdale,
whilst politely welcoming the Clementi report, noted that no decision had yet
been made about a unitary board, let alone about how appointments to one might
be made, but confirmed support for the historic practice of all appointments to
the BBC governing body being made by ministers. His definitive view will not
emerge until the White Paper in the summer, and even if he survives the
post-referendum re-shuffle, he will hold a consultation on the White Paper
before any final decisions are taken. To impute some dark and sinister power
grab to off-the-cuff comments supporting the status quo system in some
hypothetical future just seems miles over the top.

I
have no idea why Amol Rajan at the Independent, Geordie Greig at the Mail on Sunday, Dominic Mohan at the Sun and Paul Dacre at the Daily Mail all
chose not to publish the Olivia King story. Nor do I object to openDemocracy publishing
it, especially in this puzzling context. But the combination of innuendo and ignorance
on display in James’ article does no-one any credit. Hacked Off, where are you
when we need you?

About the author

David Elstein is Chairman of openDemocracy's Board. He is also Chairman of the Broadcasting Policy Group.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.